Sarah Coakley - Different views of God

Рет қаралды 15,528

Күн бұрын

Sarah Coakley (Ph.D., Cambridge) is an Anglican systematic theologian and philosopher of religion.
She has taught at Lancaster University, Oxford, Harvard, Princeton, and Cambridge. In 2006, she was elected the Norris-Hulse Professor of Divinity at the University of Cambridge (the first woman appointed to this chair).
Coakley is a priest of the Church of England. Her training for the priesthood included periods working in a hospital and a prison.

Пікірлер: 35

@Joshua-dc1bs 7 жыл бұрын

This is better than the conversations taking place on The Atheist Experience.

@UnratedAwesomeness 6 жыл бұрын

I dont think The Atheist Experience is supposed to be a good conversation. It's an enjoyable experience for atheists, who often speak with more rhetoric than logic and with great anger

@23Mijk 5 жыл бұрын

That’s not saying much

@davidlara993 4 жыл бұрын

Imagine offering any kind of intellectual respect to an "Experience" which does not provide any kind of argumentation apart from an attempt to mock rethorical.

@Joshua-dc1bs 4 жыл бұрын

@@davidlara993 imagine Jehovah picking you up by the scruff of your neck and drop-kicking your arse into Hell!

@Joshua-dc1bs 4 жыл бұрын

@@Autobotmatt428 I don't find many of the apologists all that good. I did, however, enjoy Penrose and Craig and Blackmore and Peterson.

@richardmiller249 21 күн бұрын

I think she is the best guest Robert has ever had.

@youngman44 Жыл бұрын

This is quite fascinating. Coakley is a fine and quite gracious thinker.

@gerblahdow55 8 жыл бұрын

In the last section the hypothesis is discussed as to whether "God" might be a Platonic non-personal principle of good, out of which the personal Christian God has emerged. Sarah Coakley responds that she disagrees (as would I, as a follower of Christ) but I wondered about her response. I thought that a strong point would have been that "good" is a quality that exists only in relation to personhood. I cannot think of any situation in which good (or evil) can occur in relation to nonpersonal entities. I can easily conceive of good as something that emerges out of personhood. But I find it difficult to conceive of the reverse. Am I missing something? As far as I'm aware, Plato doesn't see my question as a problem. Neither did Sarah Coakley mention it as a problem for that hypothesis. I'm puzzled by that.

@myth-termoth1621 7 жыл бұрын

Um Wow. It gives me great joy to come across a question that i absolutely dont understand.

@vaska1999 6 жыл бұрын

An excellent question, and one I'd love to hear discussed by Coakley.

@peterkay2413 6 жыл бұрын

I agree, Conrad. Funnily enough I think the sceptic interviewer puts her right !

@UnratedAwesomeness 6 жыл бұрын

Yes, so your question assumes this: saying an object is good is entirely different from saying a person's actions are good, like how "dog" can refer to a constellation or an animal. You seem to be familiar with theistic personalism which is defended by William Lane Craig and others like Alvin Plantinga. My problem with this idea is that it reduces goodness to something you can only prove by feelings, and can only barely put rational effort into. The Moral Argument put forth by common defenders of theistic personalism, if you notice, often argues extensively that we should trust our moral sense as a main premise. This is true, but Aquinas, Augustine, Plato, Aristotle, etc, would disagree that your moral sense is important to proving what is good and bad. In addition, while a sane person could say "this is good," a crazy person might feel the same way about murder, and then how are THEY supposed to act morally if their main mode of understanding what is good comes from their feelings? This all stems from a more modern system of thought that says "either things exist or they do not" where as a Scholastic thinker would say "things can exist to different degrees." In this second way, we see that good is actually interchangeable with "being" in relation to what it's ideal is (not in relation to a perfect Creator). Think about it this way, if evil is the absence of good, and God IS the good, and God is INFINITE then all things would be evil, because all things would lack vast amounts of good. (If God is infinitely loving, and humans are finitely loving, then there would be an infinite lack of goodness in comparison to God, like how 10000000 is infinitely far away from infinity) Humans could not be good even if they tried because they completely lack any possibility of, for example, loving the way God would love, which is the fullness of good (and again, evil is just a lack of good). So therefore the world is not really good under this new view, but for scholastics (like Aquinas and Augustine) good is how a person acts relative to their nature and their capabilities to act. So thus, under the Scholastic view, saying "that triangle is good" to a well-drawn triangle means relatively the same thing as saying "that act of helping your neighbour is good." The triangle is related to an ideal triangle and the human action is related to an ideal HUMAN action. This is the basics of Natural Law. As you maybe can tell, the scholastic philosophers were a lot more common sense and required fewer mental gymnastics (imo). Also, notice how the Moral argument requires you to believe that people and *GOD* hardly ever use the word "good" correctly because we use it in reference to objects and God used it in reference to the universe in Genesis 1, where in Natural Law just about everyone is always correct when they say "that's good"... and God is correct... which is important to being a Christian.

@johnsmith5139 6 жыл бұрын

sarah coakley...more like sarah well-spoak-ley

@robertharrold4214 8 жыл бұрын

For humans , God is within you,maybe not without.

@Joshua-dc1bs 6 жыл бұрын

I would like to hear her opinion of Advaita Vedanta.

@cheeseburger347 4 жыл бұрын

Who is the guy? I see him everywhere.

@youngman44 Жыл бұрын

He is the founder and host of Closer To Truth. From which these videos are culled. There’s a website with a vast collection of these. Robert Lawrence Kuhn. He’s one of the best and arguably most gracious interviewers around. One of my favorite people in the public sphere.

@frankwhelan1715 7 жыл бұрын

"Shot thru with god"if that were true it would be obvious to everyone, which it most definitely isn't.

@georgechristiansen6785 5 жыл бұрын

Nonsense. Everything is made of atoms and yet we went how long before we had the tools to perceive it. Plenty is happening all the time everywhere that we cannot perceive.

@RootinrPootine 2 жыл бұрын

It is obvious to everyone. Religion is the language of an experience and desire everyone has. If you don’t know the concepts then you will have others to fill in, inadequate to the task, but it’s still god that you seek. You seek truth, goodness, love, as such. Not simply one example of those things, but deeper and deeper. That’s what god is by definition. The source. Same thing.

@JeremyKritt 9 жыл бұрын

These are excellent videos. I really commend the creators of these high quality interviews delivered with excellent video and audio quality. These are real theological and philosophical discussions. So happy to see these on KZbin. I hope they help others think about these issues.

@acarouselofantics 8 жыл бұрын

I agree